Climate Change Banter

[tacoman25]

none of you see a connection with the large skeptic community here and the fact that most people on this board like cold/snow?

 

I think you are trying to over-simplify things. Do you really think that just because someone likes cold/snow they are just going to believe whatever they want about climate change? I mean, I'm sure those people are out there, but if anything, cold/snow lovers should be more worried than the average person right? (Assuming they live in a region that is likely to see less cold/snow with further warming).

 

Anyway, I'm sure everyone here has their own biases, but just as the views on this forum are not simply divided into something as black/white as "skeptics/alarmists", I think there are multiple factors that contribute to what exactly individuals believe on this issue.

[tacoman25]

Those that are constantly promoting the idea that most extreme weather events are caused by climate change, the higher end of IPCC projection (or higher) on TCR and ECS, and the higher end of SLR by the end of the 21st century (or higher). Also typically focusing on the negative potential impacts of climate change rather than the net outcome (i.e. avoiding talking about any benefits).

 

At least that is how I would define "alarmist". There really isn't a great word because saying "pro-AGW" doesn't really define anything. Just about all skeptics believe in some form of AGW/climate change.

 

We've been over this before in other threads, but I think most people fall into the following categories (NOTE: there are more than two!):

 

1. Extreme alarmist - AGW is absolutely going to be catastrophic, if mankind doesn't act now, civilization as we know it is over, the IPCC is way too conservative, any and all extreme weather events can probably be pinned on AGW

 

2. Alarmist - AGW is a very real and present danger, always looking for a way to connect AGW to natural disasters, favors the higher end IPCC estimates, downplays other factors that might be playing a role in things like Arctic sea ice

 

3. Middle of the roader - Believes that AGW is definitely real and probably poses significant risks, favors middle or lower end IPCC estimates, not convinced AGW will be catastrophic, looks for other factors besides just AGW at play in climate/weather trends

 

4. Skeptic - Thinks that AGW probably exists on some level but is skeptical that it is significant or poses any risk, places much more emphasis on natural factors, believes the IPCC is mostly out to lunch

 

5. Denier - Believes only in natural climate change, AGW is a hoax

 

 

I would say 90% of the people on this forum fall somewhere between #2 and #4.

[nflwxman]

We've been over this before in other threads, but I think most people fall into the following categories (NOTE: there are more than two!):

 

1. Extreme alarmist - AGW is absolutely going to be catastrophic, if mankind doesn't act now, civilization as we know it is over, the IPCC is way too conservative, any and all extreme weather events can probably be pinned on AGW

 

2. Alarmist - AGW is a very real and present danger, always looking for a way to connect AGW to natural disasters, favors the higher end IPCC estimates, downplays other factors that might be playing a role in things like Arctic sea ice

 

3. Middle of the roader - Believes that AGW is definitely real and probably poses significant risks, favors middle or lower end IPCC estimates, not convinced AGW will be catastrophic, looks for other factors besides just AGW at play in climate/weather trends

 

4. Skeptic - Thinks that AGW probably exists on some level but is skeptical that it is significant or poses any risk, places much more emphasis on natural factors, believes the IPCC is mostly out to lunch

 

5. Denier - Believes only in natural climate change, AGW is a hoax

 

 

I would say 90% of the people on this forum fall somewhere between #2 and #4.

 

2-4 is probably the vast majority of us.  However, I think you can get even more granular than that- one could divide each of the potential impacts of AGW and survey that way. For example, I would consider myself a "3" for surface temperature impact and a "2" for sea level rise.  It would be interesting to see how we all look at each individual issue.

 

Just like in politics where few people are truly 100% with repubs or 100% with democrats.  

[donsutherland1]

No one has ever sent me a PM asking me to stop talking about Climo.

 

 

Your lying you either post who asked you this or your lying.  I am sure they would have sent this PM to many others as well.

 

They can come forward with the name of the moderator who appaerntly is promoting censorship over discussing climo.

 

Yet in the NY sub forum they have a thread about how NYC doesn't go below zero since 1994 I believe.

 

I can't fathom the moderators on this board would ask you to not talk about climo in the Ohio Valley Sub-forum but allow that kind of climo talk to go on.

 

Don Sutherland uses climo analog's all the time, maybe Don can shed some light on why they allow him to continue using climo.

 

When it comes to discussing my longer-range thoughts that I do during the winter, climate is important in helping shape those ideas. Adjusting the raw analogs for the way things are today is necessary. Mentioning that I'm making adjustments is also important, so that one knows that I'm not expecting, let's say, the same kind of extremes one witnessed in a 1977-style Arctic outbreak if one of the relevant analogs comes from that outbreak. A 1970s pattern won't necessarily produce the same exact outcome as it did then, as the climate context is different. As a result, statistical probabilities have also changed. Having said that, I do try to keep more technical explanations for the changed climate (largely AGW) to the climate forum to the extent that I can.

[Jonger]

We've been over this before in other threads, but I think most people fall into the following categories (NOTE: there are more than two!):

 

1. Extreme alarmist - AGW is absolutely going to be catastrophic, if mankind doesn't act now, civilization as we know it is over, the IPCC is way too conservative, any and all extreme weather events can probably be pinned on AGW

 

2. Alarmist - AGW is a very real and present danger, always looking for a way to connect AGW to natural disasters, favors the higher end IPCC estimates, downplays other factors that might be playing a role in things like Arctic sea ice

 

3. Middle of the roader - Believes that AGW is definitely real and probably poses significant risks, favors middle or lower end IPCC estimates, not convinced AGW will be catastrophic, looks for other factors besides just AGW at play in climate/weather trends

 

4. Skeptic - Thinks that AGW probably exists on some level but is skeptical that it is significant or poses any risk, places much more emphasis on natural factors, believes the IPCC is mostly out to lunch

 

5. Denier - Believes only in natural climate change, AGW is a hoax

 

 

I would say 90% of the people on this forum fall somewhere between #2 and #4.

 

You forgot the worst of the bunch, the "pseudo-alarmist".

 

This is the guy or gal who has hijacked the science for secondary purposes. Many of these people have political reasons that would be aided by convincing us all that business as usual will be detrimental to the climate, but in reality they just hate capitalism or society in general. 

 

EDIT: To be fair, the pseudo-skeptic is just as real as well.

[Snow_Miser]

I think you are trying to over-simplify things. Do you really think that just because someone likes cold/snow they are just going to believe whatever they want about climate change? I mean, I'm sure those people are out there, but if anything, cold/snow lovers should be more worried than the average person right? (Assuming they live in a region that is likely to see less cold/snow with further warming).

 

If anything, because I like snow, I should be biased towards more warming, since there's some speculative research that decreased Sea Ice results in more high latitude blocking, and thus, colder and snowier mid latitude winters.

[LocoAko]

 

There's been some attribution to heavy rainfall events in the U.S. due to climate change. Though most studies on them are not long enough for high confidence. We don't have nearly as strong of a precipitation record as we do a temperature record since the late 1800s.

 

The media will do their typical hack jobs, but the science will speak for itself for those who actually want to read the papers.

 

Yup.

 

Plus the 1-in-1000 year stuff isn't really even related to CC, it's just a statistical measure.

[skierinvermont]

 

 

Well at least they won't be talking about the drought...but not surprisingly, that wasn't blamed on climate change once the actual scientific evidence was reviewed. (though I'm sure plenty of media will still ignorantly blame the 2012 drought on climate change)

 

Blaming the 2012 drought on CC isn't ignorant at all. It's probably correct. CC is supposed to cause summer drying and warming (the two primary factors driving drought) over much of the U.S. and especially the western U.S. CC has probably made droughts like last year more likely. 

[Snow_Miser]

Blaming the 2012 drought on CC isn't ignorant at all. It's probably correct. CC is supposed to cause summer drying over much of the U.S. and especially the western U.S. CC has probably made droughts like last year more likely. 

 

Just like the Colorado Floods are also due to CC, right?

[Midlo Snow Maker]

none of you see a connection with the large skeptic community here and the fact that most people on this board like cold/snow?

[ORH_wxman]

Blaming the 2012 drought on CC isn't ignorant at all. It's probably correct. CC is supposed to cause summer drying and warming (the two primary factors driving drought) over much of the U.S. and especially the western U.S. CC has probably made droughts like last year more likely.

 

 

Droughts have actually been decreasing in our period of record in the U.S. since the late 1800s/early 1900s, including the central U.S. The only region that has seen an increase is the far SW U.S. There is actually very little scientific evidence that droughts are currently more common than previously or that they will even become more common in the U.S. anytime soon. There are some studies based purely on climate models that suggest particularly southwest U.S. droughts could intensify in the 2nd half of the 21st century and that other random droughts could become worse based on increased evaporation of soil moisture with warmer temps.

 

 

The recent AMS report on the 2012 drought:

 

 

 

Its a typical attribution assessment. They say that climate models tell us that drought is more likely in a warming world, so that means that droughts have had a slightly higher chance of happening versus a colder world. It really doesn't tell us anything substantial though, and they note that observations do not show any attribution yet.

 

In fact, the 2012 drought was not attributable to GHGs according to the report. The relevant part of the study here:

 

 

 

 

Another recent study by the AMS on U.S. droughts (and other extremes):

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1

 

 

There is attempt at attribution with some qualifiers in a warmer world, however, the scientific evidence remains very flimsy for attributing the 2012 central U.S. drought to climate change. There might be a slightly less flimsy case if you only focused on the southwest U.S., but even there, the natural variability noise is overwhelming...they see larger swings in periods of drought than other parts of the U.S., so a more positive trend there is hypothetically less significant than some other part of the U.S.

[skierinvermont]

I don't believe that your quoted portions and links are saying what you think they do. There is a difference between drought and precipitation. Precipitation has and is expected to continue to decrease over the SW states WY,CO, NV, UT, AZ, CA, NM. Precipitation is not expected to change much over the central U.S. and has actually shown slight long-term increase thus far. However, precipitation is very different from drought. Because surface temperatures are rising, evapotranspiration is higher. This is why the central U.S. is modeled to see drying. Even the passage you quote refers to Hoerling's finding of "modest" modeled drying. Other methods of modelling soil moisture find more severe drying. 

 

I would feel pretty confident that the drought in CO, WY, AZ, UT, NV and CA was made more likely and exacerbated by climate change given the long-term drying that has occurred and is projected to continue to worsen. The Great Plains drought is less certain but the evidence generally points to future drying of this region. The 2012 drought was probably made slightly more likely and exacerbated by this forcing, although we can't be quite as confident in this conclusion as we can be for the southwest.

[A-L-E-K]

We've been over this before in other threads, but I think most people fall into the following categories (NOTE: there are more than two!):

 

1. Extreme alarmist - AGW is absolutely going to be catastrophic, if mankind doesn't act now, civilization as we know it is over, the IPCC is way too conservative, any and all extreme weather events can probably be pinned on AGW

 

2. Alarmist - AGW is a very real and present danger, always looking for a way to connect AGW to natural disasters, favors the higher end IPCC estimates, downplays other factors that might be playing a role in things like Arctic sea ice

 

3. Middle of the roader - Believes that AGW is definitely real and probably poses significant risks, favors middle or lower end IPCC estimates, not convinced AGW will be catastrophic, looks for other factors besides just AGW at play in climate/weather trends

 

4. Skeptic - Thinks that AGW probably exists on some level but is skeptical that it is significant or poses any risk, places much more emphasis on natural factors, believes the IPCC is mostly out to lunch

 

5. Denier - Believes only in natural climate change, AGW is a hoax

 

 

I would say 90% of the people on this forum fall somewhere between #2 and #4.

 

 

look are this denier framing the discussion like a politician ^

 

Forky is spot on, this is a board full of snow lovers, it's like AG and the knicks thread...a bunch of homers.

[ORH_wxman]

look are this denier framing the discussion like a politician ^

 

Forky is spot on, this is a board full of snow lovers, it's like AG and the knicks thread...a bunch of homers.

 

 

What does this have remotely to do with the science being discussed?

 

There's plenty of levels of alarmist/skeptic all of which can be supported to some extent by the science except for perhaps the two extreme ends.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't believe that your quoted portions and links are saying what you think they do. There is a difference between drought and precipitation. Precipitation has and is expected to continue to decrease over the SW states WY,CO, NV, UT, AZ, CA, NM. Precipitation is not expected to change much over the central U.S. and has actually shown slight long-term increase thus far. However, precipitation is very different from drought. Because surface temperatures are rising, evapotranspiration is higher. This is why the central U.S. is modeled to see drying. Even the passage you quote refers to Hoerling's finding of "modest" modeled drying. Other methods of modelling soil moisture find more severe drying. 

 

I would feel pretty confident that the drought in CO, WY, AZ, UT, NV and CA was made more likely and exacerbated by climate change given the long-term drying that has occurred and is projected to continue to worsen. The Great Plains drought is less certain but the evidence generally points to future drying of this region. The 2012 drought was probably made slightly more likely and exacerbated by this forcing, although we can't be quite as confident in this conclusion as we can be for the southwest.

 

 

The increasing precip trend could easily be responsible for the drought not lasting longer than it did it either end of it...perhaps we'd be seeing a stronger/longer drought ala the early/mid 1950s...we don't know, do we? The bottom line is that the attribution is so flimsy that making a headline that blames climate change on that drought is misleading and really doesn't do the science any favors. Which was the original point.

 

Even if we were confident (which we aren't) that the drought was definelty made worse by climate change....the magnitude would be so small as to really be indistinguishable from natural variability. Thus "blaming" climate change for the drought is still misleading.

[skierinvermont]

The increasing precip trend could easily be responsible for the drought not lasting longer than it did it either end of it...perhaps we'd be seeing a stronger/longer drought ala the early/mid 1950s...we don't know, do we? The bottom line is that the attribution is so flimsy that making a headline that blames climate change on that drought is misleading and really doesn't do the science any favors. Which was the original point.

 

Even if we were confident (which we aren't) that the drought was definelty made worse by climate change....the magnitude would be so small as to really be indistinguishable from natural variability. Thus "blaming" climate change for the drought is still misleading.

 

The increased temperature trend likely outweighs any small increase in precipitation. At least this is the conclusion of most climate models, climate experts, and the IPCC which gives low to medium confidence of increased drought risk in the central U.S. I see little reason to disagree with this conclusion. Even Hoerling whose "schtick" seems to be trying to one-up and attack Hansen and others forecasting dire consequences acknowledges CO2 forcing probably drives a "modest" increase in drought risk.

[Jonger]

look are this denier framing the discussion like a politician ^

 

Forky is spot on, this is a board full of snow lovers, it's like AG and the knicks thread...a bunch of homers.

 

I think this is more of a result of being an AmWx forum, a heavily winter weather oriented community. I talk with skeptics on other sites and many of them live down south or out west, local weather is of very little interest to them.

 

Heck, didn't Cromartie get banned for being too negative about winter?

[Cory]

The increased temperature trend likely outweighs any small increase in precipitation. At least this is the conclusion of most climate models, climate experts, and the IPCC which gives low to medium confidence of increased drought risk in the central U.S. I see little reason to disagree with this conclusion. Even Hoerling whose "schtick" seems to be trying to one-up and attack Hansen and others forecasting dire consequences acknowledges CO2 forcing probably drives a "modest" increase in drought risk.

 

? 

 

I've never gotten any indication from Hoerling's papers that he has an agenda. If he does, he seems to be good at rounding up sympathetic coauthors from a variety of respected institutions to go along with his campaign. Romm ripped him apart as a useful idiot or denier for criticizing Hansen's drought statements in the media, but if he's an idiot and has many of his papers debunked after they're published, it's a scary thought that he's gotten so many through peer review.

 

From what I can tell, he's only been attacked for the Hansen drought incident. I don't think that meets the definition of "schtick". 

[ORH_wxman]

The increased temperature trend likely outweighs any small increase in precipitation. At least this is the conclusion of most climate models, climate experts, and the IPCC which gives low to medium confidence of increased drought risk in the central U.S. I see little reason to disagree with this conclusion. Even Hoerling whose "schtick" seems to be trying to one-up and attack Hansen and others forecasting dire consequences acknowledges CO2 forcing probably drives a "modest" increase in drought risk.

 

 

Yes in the future...but not currently. Or at least there has been no current trend frequency or intensity of central U.S. drought over the past century. If anything, there has been a slight decrease.

 

Another paper this summer on the 2012 drought:

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00055.1

 

 

Basically concluding that natural variability in SSTs combined with shorter term variability in weather was responsible for the central U.S. drought. Little if any evidence was found that increased GHGs were a significant factor in the drought. Which supports my original assessment of media blaming the 2012 drought on climate change is ignorant and/or misleading.

 

At the very least, the media who mention climate change and the 2012 drought should inform of how likely small an impact it had on it (if it did at all in any significant manner) and how uncertain the attribution studies are. Most point toward southwest U.S. drought increasing with only modest increases in the central US, and most are future projections and do not reflect current longterm trends.

[SVT450R]

look are this denier framing the discussion like a politician ^

 

Forky is spot on, this is a board full of snow lovers, it's like AG and the knicks thread...a bunch of homers.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how liking snow has anything to do with climate change care to enlighten me?

[ORH_wxman]

 

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how liking snow has anything to do with climate change care to enlighten me?

 

The idea is: "You like snow and cold, so you must be denying that the earth is getting warmer!11!!1!"

Its irrelevant to any useful discussion of climate change.

[SVT450R]

 

 

The idea is: "You like snow and cold, so you must be denying that the earth is getting warmer!11!!1!"

Its irrelevant to any useful discussion of climate change.

Aha i see big lolz.

[WXheights]

 

 

Well at least they won't be talking about the drought...but not surprisingly, that wasn't blamed on climate change once the actual scientific evidence was reviewed. (though I'm sure plenty of media will still ignorantly blame the 2012 drought on climate change)

Uhh - Not exactly  -- "

• The 2012 spring and summer heat waves in the U.S. can be mainly explained by natural atmospheric dynamics, however, human-induced climate change was found to be a factor in the magnitude of warmth and was found to have affected the likelihood of such heat waves.  For example:
  • High temperatures, such as those experienced in the U.S. in 2012 are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change.
  • Approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012 can be attributed to human-induced climate change. "

[ORH_wxman]

 

Uhh - Not exactly  -- "

• The 2012 spring and summer heat waves in the U.S. can be mainly explained by natural atmospheric dynamics, however, human-induced climate change was found to be a factor in the magnitude of warmth and was found to have affected the likelihood of such heat waves.  For example:
  • High temperatures, such as those experienced in the U.S. in 2012 are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change.
  • Approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012 can be attributed to human-induced climate change. "

Heat waves and droughts are not the same thing.

Heat waves are one of the few attributable events with climate change that have high confidence due to the shifting "right" of the temperature curves.

I recommend reading this: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00055.1

Which I posted a few posts above.

[WXheights]

Just like the Colorado Floods are also due to CC, right?

If an abnormally weird "stuck' deep tropical jet advects 1000% precip based off climo (Francis Vavrus12) then probably

[tacoman25]

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/17/the_most_depressing_discovery_about_the_brain_ever_partner/

 

That study is about politics, not what kind of weather you prefer. I get your point, people can let their passions persuade their logic, but that certainly applies both ways and to just about anything.

[tacoman25]

I don't believe that your quoted portions and links are saying what you think they do. There is a difference between drought and precipitation. Precipitation has and is expected to continue to decrease over the SW states WY,CO, NV, UT, AZ, CA, NM. Precipitation is not expected to change much over the central U.S. and has actually shown slight long-term increase thus far. However, precipitation is very different from drought. Because surface temperatures are rising, evapotranspiration is higher. This is why the central U.S. is modeled to see drying. Even the passage you quote refers to Hoerling's finding of "modest" modeled drying. Other methods of modelling soil moisture find more severe drying. 

 

I would feel pretty confident that the drought in CO, WY, AZ, UT, NV and CA was made more likely and exacerbated by climate change given the long-term drying that has occurred and is projected to continue to worsen. The Great Plains drought is less certain but the evidence generally points to future drying of this region. The 2012 drought was probably made slightly more likely and exacerbated by this forcing, although we can't be quite as confident in this conclusion as we can be for the southwest.

 

 

FWIW, the active monsoon season this year has helped out the Southwest drought situation tremendously. One of the wettest in decades for many places.

 

[tacoman25]

look are this denier framing the discussion like a politician ^

 

Forky is spot on, this is a board full of snow lovers, it's like AG and the knicks thread...a bunch of homers.

 

So: 1) you are calling me a denier, which shows complete ignorance of my views on this issue, and 2) as much as you might like the world to be a simple black/white place, there are nuances and shades of gray. This is a complex issue, with complex personal views on it. That's not me "framing the discussion like a politician", that's just reality.

 

I'm sure it's easier to just frame everything as "denier vs. AGW believer".

[ineedsnow]

im a 5 on that list but not because im a snowlover.. 

look are this denier framing the discussion like a politician ^

 

Forky is spot on, this is a board full of snow lovers, it's like AG and the knicks thread...a bunch of homers.

[tacoman25]

 

Uhh - Not exactly  -- "

• The 2012 spring and summer heat waves in the U.S. can be mainly explained by natural atmospheric dynamics, however, human-induced climate change was found to be a factor in the magnitude of warmth and was found to have affected the likelihood of such heat waves.  For example:
  • High temperatures, such as those experienced in the U.S. in 2012 are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change.
  • Approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012 can be attributed to human-induced climate change. "

 

 

Do we have any long term statistics on heatwaves in the U.S.? How much has the frequency of extreme heatwaves increased since AGW began?